Return-to-zero shift register FIRDAC

The problem here is that the RTZ Dac performance is dependent on the hardware splitting the original .dsf file in Left, Right and Bitclock.
It is so to say only half of a Dac, who’s potential is completely dependent on the splitter.

See the big differences in the various measurements so far, not because of the test equipment, but because of the different ways the incoming signal was made.
And looking at the figures, the combo with the Amanero seems to my opinion not to be the best choice.
Sending this Dac without .dsf splitter to ASR would be like sending a car without engine to a car test magazine.

Hans
This is very true. Also as has been seen from the measurements made so far also the USB-I2S interface has an impact as RTZ dac is very sensitive to far-out phase noise. So to get comparable results also the USB-I2S interface should be the same (assuming USB is used).
 
Thanks, very interesting but why bother when ASR can do it for free with AP. That’s what I was thinking when all improvements and listening tests to confirm completed, this could be the next stage. So, in this way we have two references, listening and measurement to make informed decisions.
I'd say you'd probably be pretty lucky to nail the absolute best objective performance first go without some kind of iterative approach using such a measurement system.
OTOH, if you are purely designing iteratively based on listening, that's fine - but be prepared to be crucified by ASR (and his entourage) when a DAC at that price point doesn't come up to the best Topping etc standards.

Just thinking outside the box so to speak... :)

TCD
 
Sometimes, I get this fuzzy feeling about these diy measuring instruments cobled from freebies/cheap stuff. At some stage after all these listening tests we may need to package everything and send it to ASR
You are missing the point of these "diy" measurements. I use these measurements mainly for assessing implementation quality, troubleshooting and comparing devices I have. I have never claimed that these are comparable to AP measurements.
 
Using Cosmos APU (or other well implemented notch+LNA) it it possible to get very consistent results even with ADCs that measure vastly differently on their own.
Here my ES9038Q2M in PCM mode measured with ES9822PRO or AK5394 through Cosmos APU.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...perform-apx555b-for-30000.386001/post-7363403
Results are so similar that I have no reason to believe AP would get far more accurate results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Member
Joined 2002
Paid Member
Sometimes, I get this fuzzy feeling about these diy measuring instruments cobled from freebies/cheap stuff. At some stage after all these listening tests we may need to package everything and send it to ASR
This is a diy forum.
I have the greatest respect for those who use their best knowledge and their equipment within their badget for to do testing and show them to us.
George
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As a counterpoint, and for me personally, I don't care too much if I have to put up with slight noise or slight distortion if what's coming out the dac sounds like real music. If its smeared around or otherwise made unmusical by things that aren't being measured, then that's a problem. Moreover, ESS made plain several years ago they know very well PSS measurements don't show everything that's audible. Not only that, there the example audio files that Marcel listened to a Puifi that prove beyond any doubt that spectral measurements can fool you into thinking you know more than you really do. Listen with your ears not you eyes. That includes not putting too much weight on looking at PSS spectra.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

TNT

Member
Joined 2003
Paid Member
And how one can raise ones hearing to rule over all others is really problematic. To the level that I since long ignore Mk4s listening impressions and "publications". They are simply not to be taken serious - trust your own ears and ignore the most confident and outspoken voices - especial if their references are mostly not real recorded instruments. I think even sending the DAC that way was a mistake. Nothing good will come out of it I'm afraid.

//
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Couldn't you just be happy...
It isn't that I couldn't. For one thing, at least a few people think and believe at lot like I do. PMs come my way sometimes agreeing with what I say, but people each have their own reasons for wanting to speak up or not. I guess they are mostly satisfied that I am representing a certain point of view well enough, and that I'm willing to take the heat that can come along with it.

A lot of posts get made on various topics and for various reasons. The recent 'counterpoint' post was intended to try to bring some balance, maybe some yin and yang, to discussion about finding a way along the path to better audio. Measurements are necessary, and everybody sees you do some impressive work. Yet there has to be a place, or a way, for admitting we are in the end trying to create a subjective illusion for entertainment purposes.

So, I want to remind people to keep things in perspective is all. We shouldn't have a problem admitting we don't know how to measure well enough to predict sound quality very accurately. Its not an insult to say so, and its not something for anyone to feel embarrassed or hurt about about. It just what it is. Its the condition we find ourselves in.